508.
The erroneous version of Image 4 in
Dr Wright’s
White Paper LaTeX Files can be compared with the real Bitcoin White Paper as follows:
|
|
|
|
Left part of Image 4 from Bitcoin White Paper
|
Left part of Image 4 from the White Paper LaTeX Files
|
509.
The comparison reveals two parts to
Dr Wright’s
error:
509.1.
First, he had
referred to the hash of Tx0 in
the Merkle Tree as Hash01, when Hash01 was shown in the Bitcoin White
Paper to be the combined hash of
Hash0 and Hash1. This error probably arose when Dr Wright was adjusting
his Aspose output in the
manner described below.
509.2.
Second, and as a
consequence of the first
error, the related text overflowed its bounding box.
510.
Dr Wright spotted the latter error,
but not the
former. When the error in the content of the Merkle tree was drawn to his attention, Dr
Wright’s evidence
went through a characteristically illogical arc: concession {177:2-6, 11-20, 24-178:2},
confusion
{177:7-10}, denial {177:21-23}, dissembling {178:3-179:8} and irrelevant/technobabble
{179:8-18}:
177: 2 Q. And do
you see that, in the
second row up, above "Tx0",
3 the text
"Hash01" overflows the
bounding box, right?
5 Q. And that's
obviously an error,
isn't it?
6 A. Yes, in
this version.
7 Q. Any other
comments on that?
8 A. Not off the
top of my head, no.
9 Q. Isn't there
something rather
strikingly obvious?
10 A. I don't
memorise every part of my
diagram, no.
11 Q. Okay,
well, let's go back to the
Bitcoin White Paper.
12 It's at
{L5/26/1}. Let's go to page 4
of that
13 {L5/26/4}.
Perhaps we could put that
up alongside --
14 yeah, sorry.
So, do you see, if we
look at those two
15 things, in
the original Bitcoin White
Paper, which is on
16 the left, the
error isn't one of
overflowing
17 the bounding
box, the mistake is that
in your image,
18 you've
identified the hash of
transaction 0 as "Hash01",
20 A. Yes.
There's a typo in it,
yes.
21 Q. And that
is an error in your LaTeX
code, right?
22 A. No, it's
not an error in the LaTeX
code, it's an error
23 in the
diagram that's been introduced
at some point.
24 Q. It's an
error in your code. If we
go to {L21/11.2/7}.
25 This is the
code for image 4. Do you
see, about ten
178: 1 lines down
from the top, it says,
"put(154.8, -548.3)"?
2 A. Yes, and
I've typed in "Hash01"
instead of "Hash0".
3 Q. Right.
Because it doesn't make any
sense to describe
4 the hash of
transaction 0 as Hash01,
does it?
5 A. It does in
certain other versions
of the document.
7 A. Well, yes,
it does in other
versions. This isn't
8 the only time
I've used that.
9 Q. As a hash
of transaction 0?
10 A. As I said,
this diagram has been
used in multiple
11 things, so
where it says "Hash01",
others were 00011,
14 Shall we go
back to {L5/26/4}. You
understand how
15 Merkle trees
work, right?
18 So the way
that they work is that you
take a hash of
19 each of the
transactions at the
bottom, right?
21 Q. And a hash
of transaction 0 is
going to be hash 0,
23 A. That's one
way of naming. In a
binary tree structure,
24 you could
also do other structures
and names. Now, in
25 my diagram,
I've noticed I've put
"Hash01" there and
179: 1 I've got
an error in one of the
versions, yes.
2 Q. Because it
doesn't make any sense
to refer to the hash
3 of transaction
0 as hash 0[1], because
hash 01 is the hash
4 of both hash 0
and hash 1, right?
5 A. No, not
necessarily. If you have
Tx01 and you have
6 other naming,
then it's going to be
different. So
7 there's an
error in my diagram because
I've used it in
8 multiple
things. So I know you want to
sort of try and
9 make out that
I don't know anything
about this stuff,
10 despite the
fact that we have -- BSV
are now doing
11 1.1 million
transactions a second on
a public testnet,
12 which is
about a million times what
you guys can do, but
13 -- and
actually faster than
Oracle.
14 MR JUSTICE
MELLOR: We're talking
about the original
16 A. This is
part of the original White
Paper, my Lord.
17 I said it
scaled undoubtedly. That's
what I worked on
18 doing and
that's what these guys want
to stop.
511.
That last ‘Teranode’ part of his
answer is but
one example of (a) how far Dr Wright strayed from the question and (b) his propensity to
resort to
technobabble by way of avoidance. In making that latter point, I am not disputing his
assertion about his
Teranode system, it is the fact that he resorted to it when it had nothing whatever to
do with the
question.
512.
Although, in one sense, the error in
Image 4 of
Dr Wright’s White Paper LaTeX Files is relatively inconsequential, the fact remains that
Dr Wright’s
response to it evidenced his detachment from the real content of the Bitcoin White
Paper. It also set the
scene for his evidence about the images in the White Paper LaTeX Files.